Chump, stop working for minimum wage, get out of that old house, and walk to work. Ok, easier said than done, but anybody with a hoot of sense knows that situation is not good, and would be working real hard to make that a transient condition.

What I'm talking about is those of us able to make lifestyle choices choose the little ride instead of the big SUV, a sensible energy efficient home vice some big show off house , get a spot to farm or garden, being smart enough to not to live fifty miles from work, and so on...Then the price of gasoline is no longer important.

My ride to work gets eighty miles to the gallon, and I only got eight miles to go. How about you?

The only reason I used the word chump is because you used the word chump first. No, I really don't think a person in that position is a chump, but rather more like somebody who is just starting out, or just some somebody who is in an unfortunate situation. I personally was in that situation some long time ago having just gotten out of school, and in between real jobs. What I'm trying to say is that situation is usually transient. Most people will work themselves out of it. As to the original subject, once one is beyond that situation, and even when one is in it, smart is to always be efficient when it comes to energy and also with money.

Sure I understand that.
Unfortunately, those who are in a bad situation and cant get out, they are truly screwed.
Fact of the matter is, no matter what we say or do or wish, gasoline and other energy prices are not going to go down.
There is only one choice; that is to figure out how to do with a whole lot less.
As to those bad situation folk who can't get out, that is where we come in with this thing called help and compassion.

Every purchase you make has an energy cost included. The price you pay for that head of lettuce you buy at the market isn't just for the lettuce. It took diesel fuel to run the tractor that plowed the field, more fuel to power the truck that hauled it to market, and then more gasoline to drive to the market and back to pick up the lettuce.

Everyone who buys creates a demand not only for the product, but also the hidden energy associated with making that product. If you think that you aren't part of the demand equation which raises prices for energy because you buy organic food or drive a hybrid car, think again. The more you spend, the more energy is needed to manufacture those products. More drilling, more pollution, more spills, and more price increases.

Anybody care to share how much they personally spend per month? It's the most accurate gauge we have of measuring a person's contribution to the cost of energy, and the negative consequences of it's extraction that so many people here are opposed to.

I personally spend less than $1000 a month. Compared to the average American, I don't contribute much to energy demand, but compared to the average Indian, I'm a gas guzzler.

I got this life style adjustment program you may be interested in. "Relax, enjoy life by being lazy, and do the Planet a favor" is the motto. The three toed tree sloth is the mascot. He sleeps eighteen hours a day, and grows his food on his back. He always has a big smile on face.

On the other hand, production is the highest in the World and supply remains at high levels, while demand has dropped slightly.......PRICES are still near record highs and PROFITS are breaking records almost every quarter.....Without fail........

For years I have used an oil ETF as a hedge against higher fuel prices. Obviously it doesn't do anything about greenhouse emissions but it makes you essentially immune to rising costs for gas and heating oil without a very large investment.

I don't like the fact the DeutscheBank makes some money off of it but it works well for me. Just a case of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. It rarely is. And while I am fortunate enough to not be all the way to the left I am definitely not very close to the right hand side either so I do what I can to stay where I am.

It might, though I tend to sell it off as the price of oil rises and pick up more shares as it drops, hence creating the hedge.

Speculation causes the price to fluctuate widely, both up AND down. With a little money and common sense anyone can use these fluctuations to their advantage and become immune to rising gas and home heating costs.

Speculation isn't investment, it's making a profit at another's loss. It's people like you whose artificial demand drives up prices on commodities, from wheat, to pork bellies, to oil.

When the poor go to fill their tank, part of that higher cost goes to you. You win while someone else loses.

Investment is making a profit from another's profit. Invest in a company that makes a bread oven that uses 30% less fuel. The price of bread goes down, the baker makes more profit, the bread buyer pays a lower price, and you the investor receives a dividend. A win win situation.

So if I just bought an ETF made up of oil companies as my hedge against higher gas prices as opposed to actual oil contracts it would be OK? The price of such ETFs rise and fall almost completely in sync with the price of oil/gas so would that be a more acceptable alternative?

The XL pipeline will supply a negligible portion of the world's oil. The real test of what causes oil prices to rise or fall depends on how much you consume per month. If you want to lower the consumption of oil, work on the demand side.

The cost of subsidized oil is irrelevant. Supply and demand dictate the price. SUV's, oil speculators, mass consumer spending, China and India's new demand all contribute to rising prices that would have been even higher if more wells hadn't been drilled.

Without high demand for oil there wouldn't be more drilling and the associated pipelines necessary to carry it to refineries. Trying to cure the problem of excessive demand by cutting supply will just raise prices further.

There are a couple of ways the little guy is getting over charged. One reason is apathy. He doesn't take the time to compare between one seller's price point and another's discount. That's the little guys fault.

But the other and most important way he's being over charged is the subtle effect of inflation. Because the value of money is continually decreasing, he doesn't know exactly what that dollar in his pocket is actually worth. Because his employer does know the dollar's "real" value, the little guy get's underpaid year after year without realizing it. Just a few percent a year, but after a few years he's making 20% to 30% less in "real" dollars than he was ten years before, even though it seemed like he was getting a raise every year.

The same thing happens when he goes to buy an item at the store. The price has gone up, his dollars are now worth less, and he still doesn't know the "real" value of his dollar, but the seller does and raises the price a little higher so the little guy doesn't realize it.

The little guy is getting blasted by both barrels of inflation at the same time. One barrel at his salary when he receives money and the other barrel at his wallet when he spends money. He feels the economic pain but doesn't have a clue where the shots are coming from.

In my second sentence the method for extracting the funds that the corporations and wall street share is clearly stated as "most important".

The main reason why the gap in economic equality keeps growing is laid out before you and you fail to see it. Before wall street can extract any money, the corporations must make large profits. Please read more carefully.

If no one wants or need what you have, there is no demand for it. And if someone can supply that thing that is wanted/needed cheaper than you can, then no matter how big your supply is, no one is going to be demanding it from you. Either way, you lose money.

Now, you keep arguing that the oil companies are making "huge profits".

Which means that they are selling something that others want/need (is in demand) and are willing to pay for because no one else is offering the same thing at all, or for the same price (there is no other supplier). Those conditions are real.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was participating in a thread you started. I pointed out facts about the oil and gas industries, which are inconsistent with the opinion of the person who authored the article you linked to. I also pointed out that your claims about supply and demand make no sense on the most basic level.

To which you respond-

"You're talking about pet rocks.
I'm talking about what's needed to survive in the 21st century.."

Which earned this back from me;

"How the hell do YOU know what's needed to "survive in the 21st century"? Are you an expert in 21st century survival? Are you some sort of precog? Do tell."

So, based on the fact that we're only 12 years into this century, and based on the chronology of events in this thread, if I were to be "angry" for some reason....please explain your rationale for concluding that I would be angry about "the transition" from the 20th century to the 21st?

Shooz, don't make me embarrass you again. The linked article is written by an admittedly liberal site with links to the report it claims to be quoting and a careful reading of those reports shows that yes, in November of 2012, the US did PASS up the oil production of Saudi Arabia, for a MONTH.

However, a second link in the article shows that Saudi Arabia was, in 2012, and still is the #1 oil producer in the world.

The charts also outlines the difference between the production of crude oil and production of refined oil known as gasoline and other distillates. The article doesn't prove what you think it proves and the reports it links to don't say what you seem to want to believe they say.

This is why the FACTS are so damn important to me. Because if the FACTS don't support your arguments, they DON'T. And when EITHER SIDE uses spin and manipulation to pretend they DO, it makes us all losers.

Edit-the article is written by a guest poster named "Rmuse". Clicking on Rmuse's info we read:

"Audio engineer and instructor for SAE. Writes op/ed commentary supporting Secular Humanist causes, and exposing suppression of women, the poor, and minorities. An advocate for freedom of religion and particularly, freedom of NO religion. Born in the South, raised in the Mid-West and California for a well-rounded view of America; it doesn't look good. Former minister, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen-Buddhist."

Which is fine, but I don't view Rmuse as en expert in the oil market, or anything else commodity based. Do you?

So what's the solution? Transition to a hydrogen fuel economy. Eventually, we will run out of fossil fuel, that's for certain, so it's just a matter of time before we will have to do this, unless we want to go back to the horse and buggy.

Production of hydrogen fuel would require the development of nuclear energy on a wide scale. So, we would need to intensify our efforts to develop the technologies for recycling nuclear waste, eliminating or substantially reducing the danger of nuclear waste, and expanding our fuel supply dramatically.

In the not too distant future, we could progress to the use of nuclear fusion, a perfectly clean source of powerful energy, capable of producing vast quantities of hydrogen fuel, and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels all together.

I believe it runs up 10 mega watts, though it could be less. It would be enough to feed neighborhoods, or in smaller sizes, perhaps even homes.

LFTR

Liquid

Floride

Thorium

Reactor

It needs a small amount of uranium to start it up, but uses cheap and easy thorium for continuous operation. I believe India is building some. Another advantage is it's ability to absorb the refuse from current style reactors.

Ya, and apparently when you don't feel the need to jack the people around it's called subsidizing. I think that this basically is another way of saying---you don't have any skin in the game or some such crap.